Bangalore District Court
Bhagyalakshmi vs Jayasudha on 11 December, 2025
KABC010266002022
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.6416/2022
PLAINTIFF/S : Mrs.Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o. Late H.G Sridhar,
Aged about 43 years,
R/a.17, 5th A Cross,
Sri MV Nagar, Near HT Lane,
Ramamurthynagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru - 560 016.
Presently R/at:#9,
Maruti Nagar, Sonnenahalli,
Nagadevanahalli, B.G.S. Layout,
Bengaluru - 60.
[By Sri.M.G.Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANT/S 1 Mrs.Jayasudha,
Claiming herself to be W/o Late
H.G.Sridhar,
Aged about 43 years,
2
O.S.No.6416/2022
R/at.1212, 1st Floor,
80 Feet Road,
Chandra Layout,
Vijayanagara
Bengaluru - 560040.
2 The Assistant Director,
Agriculture Dept,
Chintamani - 563125
(D-1 -PMN Advocate)
(D-2 - IV ADGP)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30.09.2022
Nature of the Suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of : 09.08.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 11.12.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
3 2 11
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking their relief of declaration that, she is sole and class I 3 O.S.No.6416/2022 legal heir of late H.G. Sridhar, who employed with defendant No. 2 and sought the direction of defendant No. 2 to give job to the plaintiff with all service benefits of her deceased. She has also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 disbursing any service benefits and work of Late H.G.Sridhar in favour of defendant No.1 or any other persons claiming under her. She has also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 2, her men, agents or anybody claiming under her from availing service benefits of her deceased husband H.G. Sridhar from the defendant No.2.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff earlier married to one Bettegowda on 10.06.1996 and stayed with one male child by name Vishnu Bhavan, who is aged about 22 years and he finished his degree studies. Due to incompatibility of mind, the marriage of plaintiff No.1 ended with divorce on 11.03.2010 and she was divorcee at the time of her second marriage with Late H.G.Sridhar. Soon after she obtained decree of divorce on 11.03.2010, her marriage with Late 4 O.S.No.6416/2022 H.G.Sridhar solemnized on 24.04.2010 at her residence and she has produced marriage photographs and wedding card. She and Late H.G.Sridhar came in contact with each other in his Agricultural Office at Kengeri and she was doing marketing the plant machine in MODICARE regarding Agriculture "ACTIVATE" medicine used for plant to grow fertilizer in good way to get fruitful results. He collected phone number of plaintiff and repeatedly calling her and invited for meeting. He posed with plaintiff that, he has suffered lot both physically and mentally as he is bachelor in this age also. The plaintiff also informed him that, she has also suffered lot from her first marriage. After hearing these words, Late H.G.Sridhar made a proposal with plaintiff that he will marry her and assured that, he will see that, she will be looked after happily after her marriage with him. She believed his version and consented for the marriage and accordingly, their marriage came to be performed in the house of the plaintiff in the presence of her son, elders and well-wishers of the plaintiff. Late H.G.Sridhar informed the plaintiff that, he is a bachelor Government employee working in Agricultural 5 O.S.No.6416/2022 Watershed Department, Chintamani and earning handsome salary and no one is there to take care of him and his parents died. She believed him and he promised that , he will look after her and her son by name Vishnu Bhavan including his education and future marriage expenses in good manner. On his assurance, she married him and until his death, they lived together as husband and wife, which is known to the neighbours. He died on 36.02.2022 due to medical challenges leaving behind plaintiff and her son Vishnu Bhavan. At that time, the defendant No. 1 and 3 immediately came to the house of plaintiff and introduced their names and addresses, showing all fake documents as Late H.G.Sridhar belonged to their family and used abusive languages towards plaintiff and taken away the dead body of Late H.G.Sridhar in a car claiming that he is husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.3. The plaintiff was shocked by their words and in such helpless situations, she cannot talk them and they encashed loneliness of plaintiff and her son. The plaintiff and her son are only legal heirs of Late H.G.Sridhar. Hence they are entitled for all the benefits arising out of this death from 6 O.S.No.6416/2022 the defendant No.2. But the defendant No. approached the defendant No. 2 to avail financial and death benefits of Late H.G.Sridhar and job stating that she is wife of Late H.G.Sridhar by declaring that she is wife of Late H.G.Sridhar Late H.G.Sridhar. She is utter stranger to the family of plaintiff and Late H.G.Sridhar. The plaintiff also approached defendant No. 2 on 10.08.2022 to get the death benefits and service on compassionate grounds. But the defendant No.1 already given representation and plaintiff was surprised and astonished and shocked. The defendant No. 2 refused to release service benefits of Late H.G.Sridhar given to the plaintiff without enquiring properly of representations given by the defendant No. 1 and also not bothered to check identity and verify the true matter and without holding basic inquiry given value to the defendant No.1, who approached him with wrong identity. The plaintiff and her son are class 1 legal heirs of Late H.G.Sridhar. Hence plaintiff is entitled for all benefits. Hence, plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendants.
7
O.S.No.6416/2022
3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement and contented that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is wholly misconceived and she has filed this suit with concocted documents only to harass the defendant No.1 and to make unlawful claim and it is abuse of process of law and Court process. The suit is against facts and law and not maintainable. The defendant No.1 is eldest daughter of Smt. Siddamma and Sri. Saibaba and her marriage was solemnized on 27.02.1992 with H.G.Sridhar, who is eldest son of Smt.Gangamma and Sri.N.T. Hanumanthaiah at Srikshetra Dharmastala of Mangalore District as per the customs and rituals of Hindu religion. Their wedding ceremony was held on 29.02.1992 at the residence of defendant no. 1, bearing No. 1212, 80 feet road, Chandra Layout Vijayanagar, Bangalore. The defendant No.1 and H.G.Sridhar got first male child on 14.03.1993 at Vanivilas Hospital, Bengaluru and he is named as Yatish.S.J. The defendant No.1 gave birth to second male child on 10.11.1998, who is named as Sharath.S.J. The husband of defendant No. 1 was working as Agriculture Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of 8 O.S.No.6416/2022 Karnataka. After the marriage the defendant No. 1 stayed in a matrimonial house with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The parents of defendant No.1 out of love and affection, executed registered gift deed and gifted self-acquired residential house property bearing No. 1212, 1st Stage. Chandra Layout Bangalore opposite to Chandragiri Palace. Chandra Layout Vijayanagar Bangalore which is accepted by H.G.Sridhar from his father-in-law and till his last breath, H.G.Sridhar resided in the first floor of the house along with defendant No. 1 and her 2 sons. The father of the defendant No.1 has no male issues, and parents of the defendant No.1 are residing with her family in the said address. The defendant No.1 and H. G.Sridhar lived together happily and performed the marriage of eldest son on 02.12.2021 at Chandragiri Palace. Chandra Layout Bangalore. The husband of defendant No.1 died on 30.06.2022 while in service and his funeral was held on 01.07.2022 at Kaivalya Dhama. Electric Crematorium, Magadi Road, Bangalore and thereafter last rituals and Vaikuntha Samaradhane was performed by the family 9 O.S.No.6416/2022 members on 10.07.2022. His first death anniversary was performed on 20.06.2023 at the residence of defendant No 1. The Government transferred ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased on 04.07.2022 to the bank account of defendant No. 1. During the lifetime of deceased, he was member in different co-operative societies and institutions and held share certificates and LIC policies from Life Insurance Corporation and he had nominated the defendant as his nominee. After his death, the defendant No. 1 received value of Share Certificates and Maturity Value of LIC policy, which are shown in para No.11 of written statement. The husband of the defendant No.1 borrowed the loans from financial institutions which are still due for repayment and the details are shown in para No.12 of written statement . Late H.G.Sridhar has left behind hand loans borrowed from his friends and colleagues nearly around ₹ 10,00,000/- and lenders are regularly pressuring the defendant No. 1 and her sons for repayment and there is total debt of ₹ 70,00,000/- outstanding as on today and entire debt burden is solely on the defendant No. 1 and her sons. The defendant No.1 10 O.S.No.6416/2022 submitted one representation dated 01.07.2022 to the defendant No. 2 intimating about the death of Late H.G.Sridhar with a request to sanction family pension and other benefits admissible as per the rules. The defendant No. 2 sent a letter dated 01.07.2022 directing the defendant No.1 to furnish necessary documents for the purpose of settlement of family pension and service on compassionate grounds. The defendant No.1 furnished Bank Mandate Form dated 03.07.2022 to the defendant No. 2 for the purpose of E- payment. The defendant No. 1 secured death certificate of deceased husband on 13.07.2022 and also secured family tree certificate and surviving family members certificate and submitted to the defendant No.2 on 05.08.2022, for the purpose of releasing family pension and other benefits upon the death of her husband. On 05.07.2022, one representation received from the plaintiff, claiming that she is the second wife of Late H.G.Sridhar claiming all death benefits and defendant No.2 forwarded the proposal to higher authority seeking appropriate directions in the matter and as per the directions of the head of the department, the defendant No.2 11 O.S.No.6416/2022 sent a letter dated 28.12.2022 directing the plaintiff to furnish such documents related to her marriage with deceased H.G. Sridhar and to produce surviving family members certificate and family tree certificate issued by the Tahasildar. Plaintiff through her advocate submitted her reply to the defendant No.2, informing that, there are no such documents available with her and she has not furnished any of the documents sought by the defendant No.2. The defendant No. 1 came to know about false claim of the plaintiff before defendant No. 2, claiming herself as second wife of deceased. She has filed the suit seeking the relief contrary to the rules and material facts. The defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased H.G.Sridhar and her marriage with deceased is still subsisting. As per law, the defendant No. 1 and her two sons are legal heirs of Late H.G.Sridhar and defendant No.1 alone is entitled for the death benefits and no other persons can claim as legal heirs of Late H.G.Sridhar. The deceased husband of defendant No.1 was government servant at the time of his death and provisions of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and Karnataka 12 O.S.No.6416/2022 Government Servants Family Pension Rules, 2002 are applicable. As per these rules, the admissible benefits shall be released to the first wife only in accordance with law. Under these facts and circumstances, the relief sought by the plaintiff is opposed to law and barred by law and she is not entitled for any reliefs. There is no marriage solemnized between plaintiff and Late H.G.Sridhar at any point of time, much less during 2010. It is clear that plaintiff, inspite of fully aware about marital status of Late H.G.Sridhar involved with illegal acts with husband of the defendant No. 1 and financially swindled him and now intended to make wrongful gain. The defendant No.1 has submitted all documents before defendant No.2 and plaintiff is a stranger to H.G.Sridhar. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Director of Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka is not made as party. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and denied the contents of plaint and contented that, the suit is not 13 O.S.No.6416/2022 maintainable either in law or on facts and it is speculative, devoid of merits and lacks bonafide and liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action against the defendant No.2. The plaintiff's claim is illegal, vexatious, frivolous, fabricated, and created for the purpose of harassing the government machinery. This suit has been filed with malafide intention to obstruct the defendant's authorities from doing lawful duties according to law. The plaintiff has not complied mandatory provisions under Order XXVII Rule 5(8) and Section 79 of CPC and intentionally not made the State represented by Chief Secretary as party to the suit and suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The plaintiff has not complied mandatory provision of Section 80 of CPC prior to issuing statutory notice and suit is not maintainable. It is admitted that, H.G.Sridhar was working in Agriculture Department in Chintamani. As per the provisions of Rules of department, the death benefits shall be paid. The defendant No. 1 approached defendant No. 2 to avail the death benefits of Late H.G.Sridhar from defendant No. 2. It is admitted that plaintiff has also approached the defendant No. 14 O.S.No.6416/2022 2 on 10.08.2022 to release the death benefits of late H. G. Sridhar and she is claiming as second wife of H. G. Sridhar, approached the defendant No. 2 on 05.07.2022 seeking all benefits. The defendant No.2 has taken appropriate steps in the matter. There was no function arranged in the office of defendant No. 2 at any point of time. It is admitted that, defendant No. 1 approached defendant No. 2 to avail the death benefits of the late H. G. Sridhar as per the letter dated 01.07.2022 by submitting representation and intimated about the death of her husband and requested to release family pension, DCRG, EGIS and earned leave encashment admissible as per rules. The defendant No. 2 issued a letter dated 01.07.2022 directing the defendant No.1 to furnish required documents as per rules upon the death of deceased government servant. Deceased H.G.Sridhar died while in service. Assistant Director's Office has taken steps as per the rules for payment of funeral expenses and defendant No.1 furnished advance receipt and also furnished Bank mandate form on 03.07.2022 to the Office of defendant No. 2 for the purpose of e-payment. The defendant No. 2 through K2 15 O.S.No.6416/2022 challan paid ₹ 15,000/- on 04.07.2022 to the Bank account of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in person for the first time approached the defendant No. 2 on 05.07.2022 seeking all benefits claiming as second wife of late H.G.Sridhar. She has approached this court by suppressing real facts and there is no cause of action to file suit against defendant No.2. Late H.G.Sridhar was appointed as Agriculture Assistant on 30.11.1989 in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka. As per the Order dated 31.05.2012, he got an upgradation to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer and after serving in various places he reported as Assistant Agriculture Officer on 25.11.2019 in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chintamani. He died on 30.06.2022 while in service and his funerals was held on 01.07.2022 at Kaivalya Dhama Electric Crematorium, Magadi Road, Bengaluru. The defendant No.1 submitted representation to the office of defendant No.2 on 01.07.2022 intimating the death of her husband and requested to release family pension, DCRG EGIS and earned leave encashment admissible as per rules. The defendant No.2, vide Letter dated 16 O.S.No.6416/2022 01.07.2022 directed defendant No.1 to furnish required documents for the purpose of sanctioning family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds and all other benefits admissible to her as per Rules The plaintiff in person claiming to be the second wife of H.G.Sridhar submitted a representation on 05.07.2022 along with photos and intimated the death of Sridhar on 30.06.2022 and requested to release family pension and other benefits admissible upon the death of deceased Government Servant HG Sridhar. In response to the letter of defendant No.2 dated 01.07.2022, the defendant No.1 on 05.08.2022, submitted all required documents like Death Certificate of Late H.G.Sridhar, Family Tree Certificate, Surviving Family Member's Certificate pertaining to the Late H.G.Sridhar from competent authority for the purpose of releasing family pension and other benefits upon the death of her husband. In view of representation dated 05.07.2022 received from the plaintiff claiming that, she is second wife of Late H.G.Sridhar and all death benefits should be released to her, the defendant No. 2 as per the letter dated 10.08.2022 forwarded the proposal to the higher 17 O.S.No.6416/2022 authority seeking appropriate direction in the matter. The defendant No. 1 quoting all relevant court decisions gave a representation dated 12.09.2022 to the defendant No. 2 explaining that there is no second marriage by her husband and requested to release all the family pension and other benefits admissible upon the death of her husband. On 05.11.2022 the plaintiff submitted a letter and informed about her earlier representation dated 05.07.2022 and informed that, she has approached the court and defendant No. 2 has received the case papers in this court by registered post on 21.11.2022.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues:
I SSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of late H.G.Sridhar and married with him on 24-04-2010?
2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased H.G. Sridhar and marriage with him was held on 27-02-1992?18
O.S.No.6416/2022
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she alone is entitled to get service benefits of late H.G. Sridhar?
4) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit is barred by limitation?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and consequential reliefs?
7) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 18 documents and closed her evidence. The defendant No.1 herself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 34 and closed the evidence. One Amar Narayan Reddy himself examined as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.35 Ex.D.39 and closed the evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsels for defendant No.1 and 2 and perused the evidence on record.
19
O.S.No.6416/2022
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Partly Affirmative"
Issue No.2 : In the "Affirmative"
Issue No.3 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.4 : In the "Affirmative"
Issue No.5 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.6 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.7 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:- According to the evidence of P.W.1, she is legally wedded wife of late H.G.Sridhar and her marriage with late H.G.Sridhar solemnized on 24/04/2010 after getting decree of divorce from her 1 st husband on 11/03/2010. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 claimed that, she is legally wedded wife of Late H.G.Sridhar and her marriage with H.G.Sridhar taken place on 27/02/1992 at Shreekshetra Dharmasthala as per the customs and rituals of Hindu Religion and her wedding reception was held on 20 O.S.No.6416/2022 29/02/1992 at her residence bearing number No.1212, 80 Feet Road, Chandra Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and her marriage function and wedding reception were video recorded and video consist of engagement performing rituals, giving flower in Gayathri Choultry, Dharmasthala and out of said marital relationship, she got 1st male child on 14/03/1993 who is named as Yathish S.J. and second male child on 10/11/1998 who is named as Sharath S.J. It is undisputed fact that, Late H.G.Sridhar was working as Agriculture Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka and he died on 30/06/2022 while in service and his funerals was held on 01/07/2022 at Kaivalyadhama Electric Crematorium, Magadi Road, Bangalore. The plaintiff claimed that, she was working in Agriculture Office at Kengeri and she was earlier doing the marketing the plant medicine in MODICARE regarding agriculture activate medicine used for plant to grow the fertilizer in good way to get the fruitful results. At that time, Late H.G.Sridhar collected her mobile number and repeatedly called her and invited for meeting and in the said meeting, he told her that, he is also bachelor and 21 O.S.No.6416/2022 he has suffered lot physically and mentally and both of them exchanged the thoughts and she has also expressed about hurdles and problems faced by her during her 1 st marriage. According to her oral evidence, H.G.Sridhar made marriage proposal and given assurance that, he will take care of her and her child to lead happy life and also promised to safeguard the future of her child and on his assurance, she agreed and gave consent for marriage with him and her marriage was solemnized on 24/04/2010 in the presence of her son, elders and well-wishers and H.G.Sridhar informed her that, he is bachelor Government Employee working in Agriculture Watershed Department, Chintamani earning handsome salary and his parents are no more and there is no one to take care of him and promised her that, he will look after her and her son and he is ready to take care of education and future marriage expenses of her son and convinced her to marry him and accordingly, their marriage taken place.
22
O.S.No.6416/2022
10. On appreciating the cross examination of P.W.1, she has stated that, Aadhaar card was issued to her in the year 2013 in which her husband's name is not mentioned as H.G.Sridhar, but her father's name is mentioned. The concerned cross examination portion is as under;
The said Aadhaar card was issued in the year
2013. The said Aadhaar card I have not
mentioned husband name as Sridhar but father name has mentioned.
11. She has further admitted that, in her PAN Card, her father's name is mentioned and her husband's name is not mentioned. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under;
In my PAN card father name is mentioned, but not husband name.
12. Her evidence shows that, her marriage with Bettegowda taken place on 10.09.1996 which was arranged marriage held 23 O.S.No.6416/2022 at Nelamangala Choultry and at the time of her marriage with Bettegowda, she was aged about 18 years and her parents were not alive. She has further stated that, as on 24/04/2010, she was aged about 30 - 31 years and her date of birth is year 1979 and in the year 2010, her son was studying in 4 standard and as on 24/04/2010, the age of H.G.Sridhar was aged about 40-42 years. It was suggested to P.W.1 that, whether she has any documents to show that, her marriage with H.G.Sridhar was held in the presence of her family members and family members of H.G.Sridhar for which she has answered that, H.G.Sridhar had married her stating that, no one is with him and he liked her and married her. In further cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that, she hasn't produced marriage invitation card as no such invitation card was printed and she has not produced any other document to show that, her marriage was performed with H.G.Sridhar as per the Hindu customs and rituals and there is no Saptapadi procedure was held in her marriage, but H.G.Sridhar had tied Mangalasutra to her. The concerned cross-examination portion is as under; 24
O.S.No.6416/2022 I have not produced marriage invitation card, I say no such invitation card was printed. Apart from photographs I have not produced other documents to show that my marriage with Sridhar was performed as per Hindu customs and rites. There is no sapthapadi procedure was held in our marriage, but, Sridhar had tied Mangalasuthra to me.
13. She has produced photographs as per Ex.P.1 in which date is not mentioned and she has admitted that, she has not produced R.C.Card of Sridhar to show that, the person appearing in Ex.P.1 to Sridhar. Even her marriage was not registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, but according to her explanation, when she asked H.G.Sridhar to register the marriage, he told that, there is long procedure for registration and by believing him, she had married him. In the cross examination of PW-1, Ex.D.1 photograph was confronted and in the photographs, she has admitted that, she is appearing in the middle of the photograph and person sitting infront of 25 O.S.No.6416/2022 her is her friend Rashmi. She has also identified her presence in Ex.D.2. But according to her, her husband H.G.Sridhar is in the said photograph towards her left side and said photograph was taken in the function of friend's son's marriage of her husband.
14. On appreciating further cross examination, she has identified H.G.Sridhar who is sitting as 1 st person in Ex.D.3 and she has failed to identify the defendant No.1 who is sitting on the right side of the H.G.Sridhar and first son of Sridhar and extreme right side in the said photos. In further cross-examination, she has admitted that, in Ex.P.14 at page No.6 and 7, the defendant No.1 has put her signature as wife of H.G.Sridhar and said document is pertaining to a site. The concerned cross-examination is as under;
It is true to suggest that in Ex.P.14 at page No.6 and 7, the Defendant No.1 has put her signature as wife of H G Sridhar Ex.P.14 is pertaining to the site. 26
O.S.No.6416/2022
15. She doesn't know that, after the death of H.G.Sridhar, in whose name, the Khata has been entered on the basis of inheritance and who is paying taxes in respect of said site in Gram Panchayath. She doesn't know that, after the death of H.G.Sridhar, names of sons of defendant No.1 as legal heirs of deceased H.G.Sridhar entered in the panchayat records in respect of the said property and they are making payment of taxes in respect of the said site. She has admitted that, she has not impleaded G.K.Vijayarao and H.J.Yathish as party to the suit and she has not produced sale deeds mentioned in Ex.P.16 and 17.
16. On appreciating evidence of D.W.1, she has answered that, she came to know about plaintiff for the first time when she has made an application before the Government. When it was suggested that, how the plaintiff's husband H.G.Sridhar is related to her, she answered that, H.G.Sridhar is her husband. When it was questioned that, H.G.Sridhar married the plaintiff on 11.03.2010 as a bachelor, she has stated that, H.G.Sridhar had falsely represented as bachelor. In the 27 O.S.No.6416/2022 Ex.P.1 photograph, she has identified her husband H.G.Sridhar which is marked as Ex.P.1(a). She has denied the suggestion that, plaintiff from the date of marriage resided with H.G.Sridhar and led her happy married life for 12 years till his death and H.G.Sridhar died in her house and defendant No.1 and her family members trespassed in the house of plaintiff and assaulted her and took away the medical records of H.G.Sridhar. In the cross examination, she pleaded her ignorance that, as per Ex.P.3 receipts, household articles are purchased by H.G.Sridhar. She has identified H.G.Sridhar in Ex.P.8. She has denied that, in the documents produced by the plaintiff, H.G.Sridhar is referred as husband of plaintiff and she is legally wedded wife of H.G.Sridhar. She has also identified H.G.Sridhar in the Ex.P.1(b). She has also denied that, in all records from the year 2010-2022, name of the plaintiff is shown as a wife of H.G.Sridhar and she alone entitled for the service benefits of H.G.Sridhar. She has also denied that, in the year 2010, H.G.Sridhar was bachelor and he represented stating that, he would take care of plaintiff and married her. She has further 28 O.S.No.6416/2022 denied that, to claim the service benefits of H.G.Sridhar on the date of death, she came to the house of plaintiff and quartered with plaintiff and took away the dead body of H.G.Sridhar from her house and not allowed the plaintiff to perform the death ceremonies.
17. On appreciating the documents produced by the plaintiff, she has produced Ex.P.1 series which are the photographs and she claimed that, the person found with her in the photographs is H.G.Sridhar and she has produced photograph receipt as per Ex.P.2. She has also produced Ex.P.3 series which are receipts about purchase of silk saree, Ex.P.4 is receipt about purchase of one Watch and Ex.P.5 is the receipt about purchase of one Refrigerator. She has also produced some receipts about purchase of some items from the Bata showroom. She has also produced receipt about payment of some donation in Sollapuradamma Devi Jathra Function. She has produced Ex.P.8 photographs performed by her at the time of death anniversary of Late H.G.Sridhar. She has also produced another receipt about purchase of 29 O.S.No.6416/2022 pressure cooker. She has produced one letter bearing the signature of Late H.G.Sridhar. She has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated:05.05.2012 executed by one G.Ravi in favour of H.G.Sridhar in respect of purchase of site measuring 30 X 40 Feet. She produced Encumbrance certificate as per Ex.P.15 to 18.
18. On appreciating the documents produced by the defendant No.1, she has produced her Marriage invitation card as per Ex.D.4 and as per said document, the marriage of defendant No.1 taken place with Late H.G.Sridhar on 27.02.1992 at H.No.1212, 80 Feet Road, Chandra Layout near Income Tax Layout, Attiguppe, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. She has also produced ration card as per Ex.D.5 which is in the name of H.G.Sridhar. She has produced true copy of Aadhaar Card of H.G.Sridhar. She has also produced her Aadhaar Card which is marked as Ex.D.7. She has produced certified copy of the gift deed dated 19.04.2003 and as per the said document, her father by name Saibaba executed registered gift deed in favour of his daughter Jayasudha and 30 O.S.No.6416/2022 her sons by name S.J.Yathish and S.J.Sharath in respect of property bearing No.1212, 1st stage, 2nd Phase, Chandra Layout, Ward No.40 of Bengaluru which goes to show that, said property is gifted by father of defendant No.1 in her favour and in favour of her sons. She has produced SSLC Grade Sheet and certificate of performance of her son Sharath S.J. as per Ex.D.10. She has also produced marriage invitation card of her son S.J.Sathish as per Ex.D.11. She has also produced report of crematorium about cremation of dead body of deceased in Kaivalyadhama Electric Crematorium and death certificate of her husband as per Ex.D.13 and Vaikunthasamaradhana invitation card held on 10.07.2022. She has produced attestation of family tree as per Ex.D.15 which goes to show that, she is wife of H.G.Sridhar and Yatish S.J. and Sharath S.J. are her children. She has also produced surviving family members certificate as per Ex.D.16 and as per the said document, the defendant No.1 and her children are the legal heirs of deceased H.G.Sridhar. She has given requisition on 07.01.2022 to give the pension benefits like GPF, DCRG, 31 O.S.No.6416/2022 Commutation, EGIS and leave encashment and the amount of Rs.15,000/- transferred to her account by the department. She has further produced bank passbook in her name as per Ex.D.19. She has also produced letter written by Asst. Director of Agriculture, Chintamani in which she was directed to produce some documents as per Ex.D.20. She has also given requisition to defendant No.2 as per Ex.D.21 requesting to give family pension and other service benefits of deceased and defendant No.2 written letter to the Director, Agriculture
- 2, Chintamani Division seeking clarification to grant pensionary benefits of the deceased due to cross claim by two wives. She has produced letter written by Asst. Director of Agriculture, Chintamani directing the plaintiff to furnish documents ie, family tree, attestation of family tree certificate, registration certificate of marriage and documents regarding children born out of said marriage. She has also produced R.C book true copy and Ex.D.25 is Punyathithi Karyakrama certificate. She has produced birth certificate of her son who is born on 14.03.1993. She has produced birth certificate of Sharath S.J. who born on 10.11.1998. She has produced 32 O.S.No.6416/2022 pen-drive containing the video of her marriage and marriage reception of her son and certificate as per Ex.D.30. She has also produced one passbook of Karnataka State Agricultural Employees Co-operative Society as per Ex.D.31. He has also produced driving license true copy and R.C. Book true copy as per Ex.D.32, 33 and certificate under Sec.65-B of evidence Act.
19. On appreciating the evidence on record, the plaintiff has not produced any documents about her marriage with deceased H.G.Sridhar. She has produced some photographs with deceased and photographs of some items purchased regarding mobile phone, silk saree, refrigerator, funeral function held by her after the death of Late H.G.Sridhar. Even though she has produced sale deed, said document is material to prove the entitlement of plaintiff to the service benefits of deceased. Even for the sake of arguments, it is considered that, her marriage taken place with deceased on 24.04.2010 at her residence, the marriage of deceased taken place with defendant No.1 on 27.02.1992 and out of said 33 O.S.No.6416/2022 marital relationship, 2 children are born to her and the defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of Late H.G.Sridhar.
20. In a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in; Smt. Shamal Mahadeo Tate vs The District Collector, Solapur .. Zilla Parishad Compound, Solapur. and Others reported in; 2022 Supreme (Bombay) Page No.23 in which it is held as under;
"12 . In our considered opinion, the substantial issue elucidated herein above stands squarely answered by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the position of law in this regard stands more than well- settled.
21. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramadevi Case in which it is held that, the second wife cannot be described as Widow of deceased Government Employee and as per Sec.V (i) R/w.Sec. 11 of HMA and held that, Marriage of deceased employee to the putative second wife is void as at the time of such 34 O.S.No.6416/2022 marriage his first wife was alive and his marriage with her is still subsisting and second wife is not entitle for family pension.
22. In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ; Rajakumari .Vs. Krishna 2015(14) SCC 511 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that;
The family pension is given to legally wedded wife of deceased Government employee and the deceased Government employee had married to plaintiff therein while the former's first wife was alive and his marriage with her was still subsisting and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the plaintiff could by no stretch of imagination be described as the legally wedded wife of the deceased government employee.
23. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has discussed about status of widow who is legally wedded wife in para 36 of the said decision it is held as under;
35
O.S.No.6416/2022
36. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has rightly linked up meaning of widow to the status of wife who is a legally wedded wife. It considered section 5 which speaks about 'Conditions of Valid Marriage and section 11 on 'Void marriages and section 17 wherein 'Punishment for bigamy' is stated. It also took into account provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code, 1860 pertaining to bigamy and also relied on Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which states thus: "26. Contracting of marriages (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into or contract, a marriage with any person; Provided that the Government may permit a Government Servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as it referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that-- (a) such marriage is permissible under the 36 O.S.No.6416/2022 personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing."
24. In a decision reported in ; Rameshwari Devi (supra) and Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it is held as under;
"The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules were brought into force in the year 1982. Rule 116 (6)(a)(i) opens with the clause, "Where the Family Pension is payable to more widows than one". The provisions of Sub-Rule 6(a) (i) of Rule 116 of the Rules would apply only in a case where the family pension is payable to more widows than one. The primary question would be, whether the family pension is payable to more widows than one. When would a second widow or more than one widows be entitled to pension. In our considered view, more widows than one would be entitled to pension only if the 37 O.S.No.6416/2022 Hindu employee has married the woman (widow) before the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18.5.1955 and in case of employees where such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to the said employee or Government servant and the other party to the marriage. It appears from the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules that the marriage during the life time of a spouse could be accepted only if the marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to both the parties to the marriage."
25. In the said decision Rule 26 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, have been referred in which it is clearly mentioned that, (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into or contract, a marriage with any person. 38
O.S.No.6416/2022
26. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court has referred the decision of Kamalabai case in which the decisions of Rameshwari Devi case (supra) and the Raj Kumari case have been referred as under;
"13. In the present matters, we are concerned with the entitlement of the second wife to family pension upon the death of the Government employee. For the purpose of family pension the word "family" will have to be interpreted. Sub rule (5) of Rule 111 of the Pension Rules defines "family" in relation to the Government servant. Rule 111(5)(i) initially read as "wife or including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of male government servants". Under notification dated 18-1-2016 clause (i) has been amended and the word "wife" is substituted with the word, "legally wedded wife". The provision now is read as legally wedded wife or wives. Rule 111 deals with Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity. Rule 39 O.S.No.6416/2022 115 enables the Government servant to nominate one or more persons to receive the retirement gratuity/death gratuity. Proviso (I) to sub-rule (I) of Rule 115 restricts the right of the Government servant to nominate any person other than a member of his family in case he has family. The provision would make it clear that unless wife is legally wedded wife as provided under Rule 111(5)(i) of the Pension Rules, the government servant has no right to nominate such a person. Rule 111(5) of the Pension Rules excludes a wife that is not a legally wedded wife from the definition of family. If the marriage is not legal and valid, the said woman would not be brought within contour of the definition "Family". Proviso (ii) to Rule 115(1) enables the Government servant to nominate any other person if he has no family, but Sub Rule 4 of Rule 115 of the Pension Rules further prescribes that if at the time the government 40 O.S.No.6416/2022 servant had made nomination who had no "family" at the time of making it, same shall become invalid in the event of the government servant subsequently acquiring the "family".
Reading Rules 111 and 115 of the Pension Rules conjointly the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that a nomination can be made by a government servant only of a person who is member of the family, if the said Government servant has a family. The definition of family embodied in Rule 111(5)(i) specifically provides that legally wedded wife or wives only would be a member of the family. The one that is not a legally wedded wife is excluded from the definition of the term "family".
14. The family pension was initially governed by the Family Pension Scheme 1964 as contained in the Government Resolution dated 08th May, 1964. Same is incorporated in Rule 116. The 41 O.S.No.6416/2022 nomenclature, "Family Pension" connotes payment of pension to the family, a woman who is not legally married cannot be included in the definition of family." [emphasis supplied]
27. In the light of the principles laid down in the said decisions, the second wife is not entitle for any pensionary benefits. Hence, her suit itself is not maintainable. Even though she might have proved that, she married with H.G.Sridhar on 24.04.2010 by her oral evidence, she is not entitled for service benefit of Sri.H.G.Sridhar. She can be called as second wife and not as legally wedded wife as law does not recognize second wife as legally wedded wife. To that extent only, it can be held that, she is wife of deceased, but not legally wedded wife. So, I answer Issue Nos.1 in the partly affirmative and issue No. 2 in the "Affirmative" and Issue No.3 in the "Negative".
28. ISSUE NO.4 :- The defendants have taken contention that, suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The 42 O.S.No.6416/2022 plaintiff has not impleaded the sons of defendant No.1 as party to the suit whose presence required for disposal of the suit. Hence, suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. So, I answer Issue No.4 in the "Affirmative"
29. ISSUE NO.5 :- The defendant No.1 has taken contention that, the suit is barred by limitation. Late H.G.Sridhar died on 30.06.2022 and suit has been filed within the period of limitation seeking relief of declaration and suit is not barred by limitation. So, I answer Issue No.5 in the "Negative".
30. ISSUE NO.6 :- In view of my discussion above, I hold that, plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint. So, I answer Issue No.6 in the "Negative"
31. ISSUE NO.7 :- For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
43
O.S.No.6416/2022 ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of December, 2025) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : Bhagyalakshmi
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : 16 Photographs in series Ex.P.2 : Mobile purchase bill in the name of Sridhar Ex.P.3 : cloth purchase 4 bills in series Ex.P.4 : Watch purchase bill Ex.P.5 : Another purchase bill dated 09.06.2010 Ex.P.6 : Bill dated 07.04.2022 with receipt series Ex.P.7 : Another Bill in the name of Sridhar Ex.P.8 to : 2 photographs and pen drive Ex.P.10 Ex.P.11 : Letter addressed by the Sridhar to the Assistant Agricultural Director 44 O.S.No.6416/2022 Ex.P.12 : Bill dated 10.06.2010 Ex.P.13 : Notarized RC card (original is produced before the court for inspection after inspection returned back to plaintiff) Ex.P.14 : Digitally signed copy of sale deed dated 05-05-2012 Ex.P.15 : Encumbrance certificate dated 01-04-2004 to 23-
06-2025 Ex.P.16 : Encumbrance certificate dated 01-04-2017 to 22- 06-2025 Ex.P.17 : Encumbrance certificate dated 01-04-2017 to 23- 06-2025 Ex.P.18 : Encumbrance certificate dated 01-04-2012 to 22- 06-2025
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s D.W.1 : S.Jayasudha D.W.2 : Amar Narayan Reddy
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant/s Ex.D.1 to : 3 Photos Ex.D.3 Ex.D.4 : Marriage invitation card Ex.D.5 : Ration card Ex.D.6 : Attested copy of Aadhaar card of late Sridhar Ex.D.7 : Attested copy of Aadhaar card of defendant No.1 Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of gift deed Ex.D.9 : Attested copy of 10th marks card of 1st son of defendant No.1 Ex.D.10 : Attested copy of 10th marks card of 2nd son of defendant No.1 Ex.D.11 : Marriage invitation card of 1st son of defendant No.1 Ex.D.12 : Cremation report of H G Sridhar Ex.D.13 : Death certificate of H G Sridhar 45 O.S.No.6416/2022 Ex.D.14 : Late Sridhar death ceremony card (subject to 65B certificate) Ex.D.15 : Attested family tree Ex.D.16 : Surviving family members certificate Ex.D.17 : Copy of representation given to 2nd Defendant dated 01-07-2022 Ex.D.18 : Bank mandate form for e-payment Ex.D.19 : Attested bank passbook of defendant No. 1 Ex.D.20 : 2nd Defendant letter dated 01-07-2022 Ex.D.21 : Representation of defendant No.1 dated 05-08-2022 to Defendant No.2 Ex.D.22 : Defendant No.2 forward letter dated 10-08-2022 to his Higher authorities Ex.D.23 : Copy of the letter dated 28-12-2022 issued by the Defendant No.2 to defendant No.1 Ex.D.24 : Attested RC card of Car No.KA02-MP 5642 standing in the name of defendant No.1 Ex.D.25 : 1st anniversary invitation card of late Sridhar Ex.D.26 : Birth certificates of 1st and 2nd son of defendant and No.1 Ex.D.27 Ex.D.28 : Pendrive containing marriage of defendant No. with Sridhar video Ex.D.29 : Pendrive containing wedding reception and marriage function of Yathish Ex.D.30 : Under Section 63 of BSA Act in respect of Ex.D.28 and Ex.D.29 Ex.D.31 : Karnataka State Agricultural Department Employees Credit Co-operative society passbook of late Sridhar Ex.D.32 : Attested RC card of Car No.KA02-MP 5642 standing in the name of Sridhar 46 O.S.No.6416/2022 Ex.D.33 : Notarized copy of Driving license of last Sridhar (original is produced for verification and comparison after comparison returned back to Defendant) Ex.D.34 : 65 B Certificate Ex.D.35 : Government authorization order copy dated 08-08- 2023 Ex.D.36 : True copy of letter dated 01-07-2022 given by Defendant No.1 Ex.D.37 : True copy of bank mandate form issued by son of Defendant No.1 son Ex.D.38 : True copy of K2 challan for Rs.15,000/- issued in favour of Defendant No.1 Ex.D.39 : True copy of letter dated 06-01-2023 given by the plaintiff VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.